Download some aspects of tibeto-mongolica during the yuan dynasty

SOME ASPECTS OF TIBETO-MONGOLICA DURING THE YUAN
DYNASTY
The Yuan dynasty of China set up the institutional framework, the classic
precedent of relations between China, Tibet and Mongolia for several centuries,
arguably still practised or, at least, paid lip-service to by the present rulers of China.
Tibet and Inner Mongolia are still regarded by the communist government as integral
parts of the PRC and considered Chinese territory even by the Nationalists in Taiwan.
However, the question arises: was Tibet ever in reality conquered and administered
by former imperial dynasties (notably the Yuan and Qing) or by the intervening native
Ming rulers? The Chinese claim to Tibet refers to the Yuan origins of this
arrangement. This essay attempts to concentrate mainly on the nature of this
relationship as it developed institutionally during the Yuan period (1260 – 1368).
The nature of this relationship is exemplified by the so-called “yon-mchod” or
priest-patron symbiosis which found its classic expression during the Yuan dynasty,
particularly between Khubilai Khaan (1215 – 1294) and the high-ranking Tibetan
lama Phagspa of the Tibetan Sakya sect. Khubilai and Phagspa, patron and priest
respectively, formed a mutually beneficial bond, compared to the sun and the moon,
both quasi-equals – the emperor supreme in temporal, the lama in spiritual affairs.
The title of Cakravartin or universal emperor (like Ashoka of India) and role of
bodhisattva was bestowed on Khubilai, whilst Phagspa was accorded the title of
“Guoshi” (or state preceptor) and later “Dishi” (imperial preceptor). Phagspa’s Sakya
sect was entrusted with the administration of Tibet whereby this sect, represented in
particular by Phagspa’s Khon family, rose to precedence and pre-eminence during the
Yuan period. It was a mutually supportive relationship, empowering and enriching
the Sakya sect on the one hand while bolstering Khubilai’s spiritual prestige and
authority on the other, not to mention the supposed extent of his domains.
Nevertheless, this was not the first time that the Mongols had come across
Buddhism and favoured its tenets.
According to the Mongolian historian
Chuluunbaatar there had been religious ties between “Tibet” and “Mongolia” since
ancient times as far back as the first century AD. However, although it is perfectly
conceivable that Buddhism infiltrated the area of what later became Mongolia at this
time, it is highly doubtful that contact between Tibetans and Mongols was established
then, not least because there is no proof of “Tibetans” and “Mongols” as such at this
early period. Possibly there were proto-Tibetans and proto-Mongols but the real
diffusion of Tibetan Buddhism must have occurred much later, probably after the
political formation of both states.
There is, notwithstanding, evidence that the Xixia state of the Tanguts in what is
now North-West China received influence in a Buddhist form from Tibet in the 12th
century. The rulers of this area were recognised by the Tibetans as bodhisattvas (the
“living buddhas” of common parlance), “Burkhan” in Mongol. Furthermore the
priest-patron relationship, with the lama as preceptor and ruler as patron appears to
have first arisen here, with the inauguration of the “Guoshi” title of the state-preceptor
accorded to the emissary lamas from Tibet to the Tangut realm and its ruler. In
addition there is a claimed precedent, probably a myth, that Chingis Khaan, who later
subjugated this state, initiated this relationship, but this is rather unlikely. The Kara
Khitai or Western Liao patronised Buddhism, as did the Türk Empire 500 years
8
before, not to mention the Uighurs, who had converted to Buddhism after the decline
of Manichaeism.
The Mongolian prince Godan sought a lama-preceptor for his appanage, in this
area of the Xixia, before Khubilai, and received Sakya Pandita (the hierarch of the
Sakya sect) in this capacity. Like Khubilai he was proclaimed the rebirth of a
bodhisattva, although Godan was seen as an emanation of Avalokitesvara (like the
Karmapa Lamas and the later Dalai Lamas), the bodhisattva of compassion, whereas
Khubilai was considered a manifestation of Manjusri, the bodhisattva of wisdom.
Tibetan Buddhism does not begin to gain the upper hand with the Mongols,
though, until the arrival of the Black Hat (Karmapa) leader at the imperial capital of
Karakorum. This was the second incumbent of this line, which was probably the first
to introduce the idea of succession through reincarnation in Tibet. He had a mystical
crown, as supposedly had all of the Karmapa Lamas, a magical hat reputedly made
out of the hair of 1,300,000 dakinis (goddesses or fairies of the Vajrayana school).
Naturally his supernatural magical powers had a great appeal to Khubilai, who invited
him to his court in China, but unfortunately for Khubilai, his invitation was turned
down, which opened the way for reconnection with the Sakya sect. Consequently the
Sakya hierarch Sakya Pandita was invited by Khubilai but the former had died by this
time and his place was taken by his nephew Phagspa.
Thus began the association of the Yuan Mongol imperial court with the Sakya sect
of Tibet (incidentally the latter school did not use reincarnation as a means of
succession, rather they used a hereditary principle, usually descent from uncle to
nephew).
Therefore the Sakya/Yuan lama-patron relationship is classically exemplified and
expressed as reflecting the policy of Khubilai vis-à-vis Tibet and Buddhism in this
period, although, as noted, there were earlier minor examples. Towards the end of the
Yuan dynasty, the Karmapa sect became more influential and were courted by the
native Ming dynasty after the Yuan.
Even during this period, however, despite occasional Mongolian armed
intervention and invasion in Tibet and despite the setting up of two successive bodies
to administer Buddhist affairs and clergy there and elsewhere in the empire, the real
power in Tibet lay with the monasteries with their frequent internecine struggles.
Clearly Tibet was only nominally under the jurisdiction of the Yuan Empire, as
represented by the Sakya hierarchs. For example Phagspa’s younger brother was
recognised as “Head of All Tibet” but the extent of even his powers was limited. In
effect, Tibet (and by no means all of Tibet) was at least semi-autonomous under Yuan
suzerainty and monkish rule was the norm.
A loose association of Tibetan lamas and the subsequent native Ming dynasty
(1368 – 1644) continued the lama-patron tradition, although the Ming did not control
Tibet in any way. But the yon-mchod policy formed the basis of the Qing policy
towards Inner Asia, especially Mongolia and Tibet. Despite the fact that the Tibetan
Buddhist religion was to provide the Manchus with a powerful ideology and a means
to gain the support of the Mongols and although troops and Manchu ambans
(ministers) were to be stationed in Tibet under the Qing, in reality Tibet remained
9
quasi-autonomous under Qing suzerainty also. Therefore it was not until modern
times, with modern 20th century military technology and communications that Tibet
became truly incorporated within China (it should be remembered that Tibet
geographically is difficult to control). The present Chinese government is attempting
to revive certain aspects of the lama-patron policy to justify its own claim to Tibet, a
rather spurious claim. During the Cultural Revolution it engaged in vicious
destruction and iconoclastic ravages on Tibetan culture and religion, while now it is
trying to repair part of the damage, encourage tourism and propagate the notion that it
has the power to recognise Buddhist incarnate hierarchs legitimately.
To return to the Yuan period, it was at this time that Mongol-Tibetan links were
forged and established, in the form of an alternative state ideology. Khubilai Khaan
was very eclectic in his religious beliefs: Lamaism, Chan, Daoism, Confucianism,
even Christianity (his mother and other members of his family were adepts of
Nestorian Christianity and he had a very tolerant religious policy). Also he made use
of Moslems in his administration. However, he was particularly attracted to Tibetan
Buddhism, possibly because it promised magical powers (siddhi) and he knew that
monks exerted political powers in Tibet. Also he saw in it an alternative non-Chinese
system of beliefs in contradistinction to Confucian orthodoxy for his non-Chinese,
Inner Asian, subjects. A new homogenised script devised by Phagspa and intended
for all Khubilai’s subjects failed and was abandoned, maybe because he had to have a
different policy towards different nationalities within the Empire. So he had to have a
dual policy: to be an Emperor in the Chinese tradition without surrendering his own
“barbarian” identity and beliefs. As with the later Qing, the Yuan dynasts had to rule
the Han and non-Han subjects on a different basis.
Thus Khubilai was enshrined as a Buddhist universal ruler, a Cakravartin, and
emanation of Manjusri, like the later Manchu Emperors who followed his example in
the hope of appealing to their non-Chinese subjects. For the Chinese he had to reintroduce the Confucian exam system, whereas his administration was salted by
Tibetan, Turkish, and other peoples in addition to Mongols.
Not only was Kubilai regarded as Manjusri, Geser Khan and Cakravartin, he was
also seen as an embodiment of Mahakala, the Tantric yidam and protector deity of the
Sakya sect, later to be associated with the Gelugpas and the Qing. To the Yuan
dynasty Mahakala was the main protector while the third Dalai Lama subsequently
selected the white Mahakala as a special protective deity of the Mongols (doubtless
the reason for the later Qing reverence).
Mahakala was originally the male form of the Hindu goddess Kali, Buddhicised,
and an emanation of Vairocana, the white Cosmic Buddha, symbol of sovereignty as
well as absolute reality. Not only does he represent royal legitimacy, but also he is
reckoned as a wrathful emanation of Avalokitesvara, which in turn links him to
Godan Khan, the Karmapas and the later Dalai Lamas.
To sum up, Khubilai Khaan established the very pragmatic precedent of using
Buddhism, especially Tibetan Buddhism, as a means of extending his empire, at least
on paper, to Tibet, and which enabled him partly to dispense with traditional Chinese
forms of government. His own authority was enhanced greatly by his association
with Buddhist deities. His initiation of the yon-mchod priest-patron relationship,
10
although sketchily adumbrated before, was to remain a powerful tradition of
diplomacy with Buddhists, Tibetan or Mongol, right down to the modern period,
arguably even to the present day. However, in reality Tibet is now firmly within the
Chinese political orbit. Although it is claimed that Tibet is an “autonomous” region,
in fact it is ruled as just another part of China. In the Chinese language the
appellation “Chinese” (Zhongguo ren) includes not only Han Chinese but also
Tibetans, Mongols, Chinese Moslems etc. The Chinese government maintains the
myth that Tibet has been part of China since the Yuan dynasty but, as this essay
attempts to demonstrate, this claim appears tenuous, to say the least.
11